FirstCred saved
When the Notes reached their respective maturity or redemption dates however, the 1st Respondent defaulted on payment, leading to the current proceedings. With respect to the first Note, he said the amount owing on the redemption date was P16 million with an accrued interest of P4,130,136. 99 and accrued default interest of P1,696, 800.82, while that owing with regard to the 2nd Note, was P25 million with an accrued interest of P3, 945, 205, 48 and an accrued default interest of P1,183 597.87.
The judge said the 1st Petitioner contends that the 1st Respondent is insolvent and its failure to pay its debts when due and payable is a sufficient ground for its winding up. Regarding the petition by the 2nd Petitioner, the latter states that on the 10th November 2017, it concluded a Cooperation Agreement with the 1st Respondent in which the 1st Respondent would not only trade its debt through its portal but be obliged to buyback any under- performing debt placed with it, explained Dr. Kebonang, adding that the 2nd Petitioner says they are owed an amount of EUR 3,714,700.46 arising from a breach of the Cooperation Agreement and that the 1st Respondent’s failure to pay the amounts owing as and when they fell due and payable, was a sufficient ground for its winding up. “In response to the petitions, FirstCred admits that it is in breach of payments regarding the two Notes it issued but contends preliminarily as against the 1st Petitioner that it has failed to establish urgency and that it lacks standing to bring the current proceedings.
As against the 2nd Petitioner, the 1st Respondent denies owing the 2nd Petitioner any amounts and contends in the alternative that if there were any amounts due, such would not be claimable as it would be in breach of the terms and conditions of the Note Programme. “In the event that the Petitioners should somehow succeed, so the 1st Respondent continues, this court must exercise its discretion under section 371 of the Companies Act and refuses to grant a liquidation order but instead issue a judicial management order as it was not in the interest of creditors that the company should be wound up,” the judge concluded.